NATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Hanumangarh dated February 13, 1981, by which the appellant Nathasingh was convicted under section 302, I. P. C. and 27 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and three years* rigorous imprisonment on the respective counts.

(2.) THE prosecution case is short and simple and in succinct it is as follows:- Azayabsingh - the deceased victim in the case - was the son of PW 1 Gulabsingh Jat Sikh and cousin of PW2 Sukhdeo Singh. He was living with his parents in village Chandro P. S. Hanumangarh district Ganganagar. THE accused is also a resident of the same village. Azayabsingh was convicted under section 307, I. P. C. and was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment for making an attempt on the life of the appellant. THE appellant due to this attempt on his life by Azayabsingh, started harbouring ill-will against him. Azayabsingh went in appeal. THE appeal was admitted and his sentence was suspended during its pendency. He was released on bail a few months before the occurrence. This further fanned the fire of enmity. At about 1. 00 P. M. on October 5, 1979, Azayabsingh was sitting under a Shisham tree in an open place alongwith Gurdeosingh, Laxmansingh, Nidensingh and PW 2 Sukhdeo Singh. Azayabsingh was sitting in a hunched position with his thighes touching his chest. THE accused emerged from the house of one Safi Mohammed situate nearby and came to the place where these persons were sitting. When he remained only two or three feet away from Azayabsingh, he (accused) took out a pistol from the fold of his Loongi and fired a shot at Azayabsingh. THE shot hit the left intra-scapular region and pierced the left side of chest. It further hit his left thigh antero-surface 6 inches below the ingunial line. Azayabsingh got up and started running, but he soon fell down. His father Gulabsingh (PW 1), who was returning from the field to his house, on seeing the incident reached there. He and those who were sitting near Azayabsingh followed him and tied his turban around the chest wound. THEy lifted him to take to his house, but he succumbed to the injuries. THE accused, after firing the shot, took to heels. PW 1 Gulabsingh reached Police Station, Hanumangarh Junction and verbally lodged report EX. P. 1 of the occurrence at about 2. 00 P. M. on the same day. THE police registered a case and proceeded with investigation. THE A. S. I. Police Kartarsingh (PW 4) immediately arrived on the spot and prepared the site plan EX. P. 2. He also seized the blood-stained soil from the place where the deadbody of Azayabsingh was lying. He also noticed some drops of blood on the place where Azayabsingh had fallen down after running a few feet. Since those drops of blood were in miniature, they could not be lifted. THE A. S. I prepared the inquest report of the victim's deadbody. THE autopsy of the victim's deadbody was conducted at about 5. 15 P. M. on the same day by PW 3 Dr. Narendra Godara. He noticed the following ante-mortem injuries on the victim's deadbody:- "1) Wound of entry, lacerated wound 3/8" x 1/4" probe could be passed 1" deep-margin inverted-scotching and Wakening present around the wound. Lictim from above downwards-situated on left inter scapular region at the level of 4th throasic spine 1-1/4" from mid line. 2) Wound of exit-lacerated wound from left side of chest anteriorly in 7th inter coastal space 2-1/4" from midsteral line 1-1/2" below and medial to left nipple size 5/8" x 1/4" probe could be passed 1" in depth-margin everted-no blackening or scorching present. THE wounds No. 1 and 2 were bleeding on examination. THE horiz-antal distance between wounds No. 1 and 2 was of 6 1/2". On dissection, the wounds No. 1 and 2 were seen communicating with each other. 3) Wound of entry-Lacerated wound on left side anterio-medial surface 6" below the inguinal line. Size 3/8" x l/7" probe could be passed through and thigh-margins inverted-blackening and scorching present. 4) Wound of exit-Lacerated wound on left thigh posterior surface 7" above left knee line-Size 1/2" x 1/4" probe could be passed through and through margins everted-No blackening or scorching present. THE wounds were bleeding on examination. THE wounds Nos. 3 and 4 were communicating with each other and the distance between both such wounds was of 4-1/2". THE wound No. 3 is situated 1 "above wound No. 4. THE direction is above downwards for wound Nos. 3 and 4".

(3.) IN assailing the conviction, it was strenuously contended by Mr. Garg that PW 1 Gulabsingh and PW 2 Sukhdeosingh have been falsely introduced as ocular witnesses and they have been wrongly taken as witnesses of truth by the trial court. While elaborating and building is arguments, Mr. Garg contended that the claim of these witnesses to have seen the incident is wholly untrue and unfounded. IN an attempt to show that all these witnesses have been falsely introduced, Mr. Garg raised the following points :- (1) No blood was found at the place 'a' in site plan Ex. P. 2 where, according to these witnesses, Azayabsingh was shot at. (2) No trail of blood was found from place 'a' to place 'b' where the victim is alleged to have fallen after running a few steps. At place 'b' in Ex. P. 2 also, no blood was found. (3) According to PW 3 Dr. Godara, the victim must have met the death instantaneously on the spot on receiving the gun-shot injuries. He was not in a position to run from place 'a' to 'b'. The evidence of these two witnesses that the deceased ran from place 'a' to place 'b' on sustaining the injuries, thus, stands completely falsified and that in itself is sufficient to render them unworthy of credit and reliance. (4) As per medical evidence of PW 3 Dr. Godara, two entry wounds caused by fire-arm were found on the victim's deadbody. Both the entry wounds had blackening and scorching. They were, therefore, the results of two shots. The injury on left thigh of the victim could not be caused by the shot which they caused the injury on scapular region. According to these two eye witnesses, only one shot was fired by the accused. Since it is a case of two gun-shots and the witnesses have stated only about one gunshot, the inevitable inference would be that they had not seen the occurrence; (5) Some of the material witnesses, who were admittedly present at the place of incident and were sitting alongwith the deceased, have been with held by the prosecution; (6) The victim had exit wounds also. It shows that the bullet with which the victim was hit, came out of the victim's body. But no bullet was found at the place of incident or nearabout it. That suggests that Azayab-Singh was shot at some other place and his body was later on brought to place 'c' in Ex. P. 2 where it continued to lie till the arrival, of police, and (7) The opinion of PW 3 Dr. Godara that both the entry wounds of the victim could be caused by a single gun-shot if he was silting in a hunched position with his thighes touching his chest, is not correct and dependable. The very fact that blackening and scorching were found on both the entry wounds, is sufficient to hold that they could not be results of a single shot.